Police Authorities: Proposed Mergers

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not the first time that this problem has arisen? In 1984, we faced it very directly as well as in the context of the outrage of the shooting from the Libyan Embassy. After examination by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, we concluded that parking offenders should also be declared persona non grata where necessary. Thereby, the figures were reduced from 109,000 cases in 1984 to fewer than 8,000 in 1989. Would the Minister be wise enough to follow that example?

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, why do diplomatic travellers in Oslo manage to comply with the laws there and not in this country?

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but how does he square up the criticism given by the EFRA Select Committee with regard to the payments agency when it accused the agency of complacency? The amounts should have been paid in full, but the Minister has just said that the bulk of them will be paid, so even he is accepting that they will not be paid in full. Will he tell us, despite an £18 million overspend, what proportion of the assessments have so far been completed? Of the payments due to start in February and be completed by the end of March, is there is a contingency plan for those that will be not met?

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Select Committee from another place, I do not believe that it has done itself justice in the report that it has published. The committee misquotes me three times. I do not mind that, but I object to being called complacent, not so much on my own behalf but on the behalf of those in my department and the Rural Payments Agency who are working night and day to ensure that farmers get their payments in February and March of this year.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I do not doubt that the Minister's staff are working extremely hard, but I am sure that he is aware that 80 per cent of the single farm payments were paid to Welsh farmers before Christmas, 62 per cent to Scottish farmers and 75 per cent to farmers in Northern Ireland. Why is it that farmers in England are not going to be paid even in this month and will have to wait until February? I am sure that he will also recognise that the EFRA Select Committee report that came out last week is an all-party report, and its general conclusion is:
	"We are deeply unimpressed by the failure of Defra and the Rural Payments Agency to plan properly for the process of administering payments under the single payments scheme".
	It asked for Ministers to give a definitive announcement on that. Although he has made some promises, the findings of the committee do not give us a lot of confidence.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl as usual has hit a good point. It is one of the reasons why I am so keen that we should start paying the full payments in February of this year. If we make partial payments, which would certainly be better than nothing, it may have some effect on the 2006 payments, which would be due at the end of the year.

Lord Bach: My Lords, 11 subsidy system schemes ran up until the CAP reform, which was supported by all sides of the House. My noble friend is right that the dates for those schemes differed, but a number of them meant that the window for paying them closed in the middle of the year. So there would have been farmers paid last in June or even July 2005.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree very much with my noble friend. I am surprised that we find the attacks on the implementation of the scheme from those who supported it so warmly when it came in. The new financial system is part of the reform of the CAP, which signals the biggest shake-up in English farming for more than 30 years. The single payment scheme increases farmers' freedom to innovate and respond to changing consumer demands. Additionally, they have to meet new base line standards for agriculture. Everyone agreed that this was a good change; I wish that they would support it now.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that unfortunately I very much agree with the statements made by other noble Lords. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble friend Lord Plant, the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—this is not the right amendment. I reassure the noble Lord that I fully appreciate the concern that has caused him to proceed with tabling the amendment, but I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill in the way that he suggests—not least because of the amendments that were made earlier.
	As we have said previously, the Bill is about stirring up hatred. It is difficult to see how simply reading from a sacred text would ever, by itself, be considered an action that would stir up hatred. The only circumstances that I can envisage where the reading out of a sacred text could possibly fall within the scope of an offence would be if such a reading were accompanied by actions or words which are already adequately covered by the freedom of expression exemption currently in the Bill at paragraph 29J. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, the architect of these provisions, is therefore quite right in saying that it would be unnecessary. That is because it exempts matters such as criticism and expressions of antipathy towards a particular religious belief.
	When we reach the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I will report to the House, as I undertook to do on Report, the outcome of our strenuous deliberations, which have engaged all Benches—the Bishops' Bench, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and ourselves—to try to come to an accommodation. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is seeking to underline the consensus which we all arrived at—that we need to do two things. We need to protect people from the aberrant and quite disastrous effects of religious hatred but, by the same terms, not put any improper restriction on our freedom of speech and of expression. When we come to the next stage, I will seek to outline the Government's response to those issues.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	I should like to take this opportunity to explain to the House the basis on which we propose that the matter should go forward, particularly bearing in mind that pursuant to the discussion we had on Report, it was hoped that there be amendments that we could move on Third Reading. That has not proved possible.
	At Report stage, on 8 November, I said that we would continue to try to build a consensus on the Bill that balanced the concerns which many noble Lords had clearly expressed about the freedom of expression with a need to produce a viable and effective offence of incitement to religious hatred. It seemed to me then, as I said earlier, and it seems to me now that, in this House, such a consensus does exist: first, that we need to protect people, as I have just indicated; but, secondly, that we also need to protect our freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I believe that there is still a possibility that that consensus will be arrived at. However, it has not been possible to bring forward agreed amendments to this House. I confess that that is a source of great regret and acute disappointment to me.
	A great deal of thought has been given to how that consensus could be achieved on this Bill. There have been discussions with key Members of this House and another place, not least the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Hunt. I thank them for their diligence and hard work in those efforts. The Government have made considerable efforts to try to meet the concerns expressed. I will leave it to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Hunt, to explain their position on these matters. It is, however, only right and fair that I set out to your Lordships the Government's position during those negotiations. It remains our position.
	We are prepared to accept that the incitement to religious hatred offence should be separate from the existing racial offence, and that it should form a new schedule to the Public Order Act 1986. That is, we accept, the new architecture. We propose to insert a subjective recklessness test into the offence, clarifying the intent provisions. We will put forward a revised version of the freedom of expression wording for the sake of complete clarity on this issue. It will specifically state that proselytising, discussion, debate and criticism—including the use of abusive and insulting language and ridicule—of religion and religious practices will not be caught by the offence unless a person also intends to stir up hatred against a group of people, or is reckless as to whether it would thereby be stirred up. We have always contended that that is the Government's intention. Finally, we will be seeking to restore "abusive and insulting" to the words and behaviour that make out the offence. I hope that, given the full package of measures that we are proposing, this will not be something that will cause noble Lords to disagree.
	I must again thank noble Lords for their considered contributions throughout the progress of the Bill through this Chamber. I recognise that the concerns expressed arise from a real desire to ensure that the treasured freedoms of this country are not eroded. On these Benches, we have upheld and expressed that desire, so there is consensus on that issue. I am absolutely committed to those aims and to ensuring that we protect our most vulnerable communities from having hatred stirred up against them by those who do not share these values. I thank those on this Bench who have arduously and consistently supported those aims.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as so often during the long life of these proposals, I speak not in anger but in sorrow. I hope this will not be taken as a partisan point, but our starting point for this latest journey was not very promising. I am reminded of the old joke where one man asks another for directions and, after a pause, his interlocutor begins by saying, "Well, you wouldn't want to be starting from here". Unfortunately, Ministers made a fundamental mistake by attempting to amend the Public Order Act 1986 by effectively adding "religious" to "racial" throughout the existing offences. That misjudged attempt to equate religion with race started this entire debate off on the wrong track. It has taken a lot of effort, courage and patience, not least on the part of Ministers, to get the debate on to the right track. I readily pay tribute to Ministers for their willingness to listen and to restructure this fundamental aspect of their original approach.
	As the Minister pointed out, as soon as Ministers agreed that the proposed new offence of inciting religious hatred should appear separately as a new schedule to the 1986 Act, the possibility of reaching a consensus was created. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the short debate we have just had on his amendment which reinforces that point. Suddenly, it became possible to fine-tune the religious hatred offence without also reopening the 1986 settlement on racial hatred. At a stroke, a broad consensus here and in another place seemed not only attainable in principle, but tantalisingly close in practice. As we return this rewritten Bill to the other place, I fervently hope that its Members will think again and endorse our view that a person's race and his or her religion are quite different qualities. Race is innate. In a liberal democracy, it must be an article, if not of faith, then surely of the fundamental foundations of our political discourse, that beliefs are a matter of individual choice. Adherence to a faith, belief or set of beliefs is about ideas and should not be elevated in law to a higher plain than any other idea or ideas. That is why on 25 October this House made its position very clear indeed. The Bill in its original form was overwhelmingly rejected and an amended version was adopted, with support from every part of this House. That, I believe, was the House of Lords at its best, in its traditional role of amending and improving legislation and defending civil liberties. Since then some very important and detailed discussions have taken place.
	I thought it might be helpful if I set out my response to the noble Baroness. Just as Ministers conceded ground and accepted both our amended structure and substantive aspects of the revised Bill, so we on these Benches have moved too. We did so at the outset, by conceding the principle that any such Bill should be passed at all. Although we on these Benches certainly agree that there should be no right to stir up hatred of people, on the whole we continue to believe that the existing law covers this perfectly adequately. That was underlined by the recent travails of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, who was apparently investigated by the Metropolitan Police after expressing negative views about homosexuality.
	We really must do everything we can to ensure that this new legislation is not open to abuse. It must not open the floodgates to a mass of frivolous complaints, much wasting of police time and pointless inconvenience and worry for those who express trenchant views about religion. However, as the great Rab Butler once said, politics is the art of the possible.
	The Labour Party won the last election and committed itself to legislate in this area—and we all remember the terms of the Labour manifesto. During our meetings with Ministers, I confirm that it soon became clear we were all seeking to achieve the same objective; namely, absolute clarity in the Bill that any new offence should capture the stirring-up of hatred against people and not beliefs or practices. Throughout there was a lot of good will on all sides. Shortly before Christmas, it seemed that that good will might manifest itself in a more concrete form in the shape of an agreement on the Bill. Alas that did not prove possible. The concessions offered by Ministers were by no means perfect, but they were a major improvement on the original Bill. I should like to pay tribute to everyone involved because there was no shortage of constructive contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I believe strongly that this matter is above party politics, and it was treated with the seriousness it deserves. Between us we constructed a bridge, both halves of which reached almost halfway across the chasm that had existed between the two sides. Unfortunately, that is never quite good enough.
	I should like to pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who has been unfailingly courteous and patient. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, whose wise counsel never faltered. I pay tribute also to colleagues in another place, especially Dominic Grieve, but also Mark Oaten and the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. All have combined an adherence to principle with a genuine willingness to engage and to compromise where possible. The sticking points, however, soon became all too apparent.
	In order to allow ideas and free debate to flourish, it is essential that we should retain our right to criticise—even as hateful—beliefs and practices of every kind, be they secular or religious. That means retaining the right to cause a sense of insult, and also to say things that might seem abusive. I am afraid that that is why those two words, "abusive" and, especially, "insulting", even when clearly confined to the offence of stirring up hatred against people, continue to cause these Benches such difficulties. They involve the creation of a new criminal offence that could result in people being imprisoned through causing insult alone in this controversial area of religion and politics. That is the rock on which agreement foundered.
	There will be a chilling effect from this legislation—there will inevitably be self-censorship—and the burden of minimising that will fall heavily on the freedom of expression clause in this Bill. The inclusion of the so-called "PEN amendment" in the amended Bill demonstrates just how seriously we in this House take our responsibilities for protecting freedom of expression.
	In conclusion, Members of this House have walked a long and winding road together and I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. The end of the road seems at last in sight. I say without shame, embarrassment or false modesty that this House has improved the Bill immeasurably. We are sending back to the other place a far better Bill than the one that it handed to us a few months ago. I hope that the other place agrees.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her generous remarks and helpful explanation. On a matter as sensitive as this, it is important to avoid party-political posturing and concentrate on substance. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary and the Minister for the open-minded and honourable way in which they have conducted negotiations with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, with me and with others on behalf of our parties and beyond.
	We welcome the fair compromise reached with the Home Secretary on further amendments to the Bill. Like the Minister, we regret that it is not possible for the changes to be made in this House today. That is regrettable because the Bill will leave the House in an imperfect state. The amendments that we crafted in our negotiations would improve those that I successfully moved in Committee, with the support of the noble Lords, Lord Plant and Lord Hunt, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, and the majority of the House, without destroying the substance of the offences or undermining existing public order legislation, which for all the main offences uses the words, "threatening, abusive or insulting".
	Like the Government, we wish that it had been possible for this House, which has played such an important role in including essential safeguards in the Bill, properly to complete the work before sending the Bill back to the other place. I shall not go into the reasons why not; that would show a lack of tact and diplomacy with the other place. If, as we hope, the amendments are adopted in the other place, those changes will not wreck this manifesto Bill. Together with the remedies for religious discrimination in the Equality Bill, they will achieve the Government's legitimate aim of giving legal protection to vulnerable religious as well as ethnic minorities against both incitement to hatred and religious and racial discrimination.
	The amendments will also meet another central aim of so many from all sides of the House: to include clear safeguards protecting the practical enjoyment of freedom of expression of writers, publishers, broadcasters and entertainers, and of the public, against the chilling effects of a vague and over-broad criminal law. The declaratory statements proposed to be placed in the Bill would make it clear that no offence would be committed for anything done by way of discussion or debate on religion, religious belief or religious practice; or criticising, expressing antipathy towards, abusing, insulting or ridiculing any religion, religious belief or practice. That would be a unique addition to the criminal code and is supported by English PEN.
	We greatly welcome the Minister's statement, as I understand it, that the Home Secretary will table those amendments. I wish that I could claim them as my own and as a famous Liberal Democrat victory, as I believe them to be, but I understand that he will table those amendments in the other place, where we hope that they will be accepted.
	If any are minded to wreck the Bill in the form in which it is now proposed, I ask them to reflect not only on whether that would be in accordance with constitutional convention but whether they would wish to take the position that it should not be a crime to use abusive or insulting words deliberately to stir up hatred against Muslims as Muslims, in the way in which it has for 40 years been a crime deliberately to stir up hatred against black people or Jews because of the colour of their skin or their Jewish ethnicity. I suggest that that is not an attractive position for a modern political party to espouse. If the government amendments are included in the Bill when it returns to this House, we on these Benches will accept them.
	Finally, we hope that the Home Secretary will be able and willing speedily to secure the equal protection of the law by abolishing the archaic and out-moded crime of blasphemy protecting Christianity against insult and abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has just spoken about the importance that he and his party attach to leaving out the words "insulting" and "abusive" from the definition of the offence. I had not realised that he would say that, but perhaps I may explain why that is wrong. It is completely wrong because we have taken the words "insulting" and "abusive" out in the free speech guarantee. Therefore, they need to go back in because this is part of the family of all public order offences dealing with hatred against groups of people—for example, Muslims as Muslims—in the way that they deal with Jews as Jews. That is misguided; although I know that there are others in my party as well as the noble Lord's who take a different view. I do not believe that that is a coherent position.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has said that we are not in the position we would like to be, and I would say only that if the Bill had not gone into a secret cabal and we had had the discussion on the Floor of the House, we would probably have reached a much better position. I object to the way this matter has been handled. As the noble Baroness is aware, I have not been privy to the discussions that have taken place between the Home Secretary, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
	Over many years I was involved in trying to secure legislation on similar lines to those we are now discussing. In their wisdom, noble Lords sent a Bill that I introduced to a Select Committee where it was considered for a whole year. It came back to the Floor of the House and was there further discussed. On those occasions we had every opportunity to talk about the matters that have preoccupied us during the proceedings on this Bill, particularly the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others for separating incitement to religious hatred from incitement to racial hatred. I persist in the view that that is a mistake. Aside from anything else, when the courts come to deal with offences of this kind, they will have to say that Parliament intended something completely different from what is already set out in the Public Order Act 1986. If we had continued on the original lines, we would have prevented that confusion arising.
	This is not a matter which has come up recently, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It was considered by the Law Commission as long ago as 1985. At the time the commission said that although incitement to religious hatred was not a proximate matter for Parliament to consider, if it ever became so, it would be a simple matter to legislate by adding religion to Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. That was the genesis of the proposal. It was picked up by the Government in the NIA Act and further developed in the Select Committee. I remain convinced that it would have been preferable to continue along those lines. However, since we decided not to do that, it was incumbent on the Government to introduce their proposals in the light of day, not to discuss them with Front Benchers behind the scenes. That is not a way to legislate. I am very disappointed that we do not have proposals before us showing how the Government intend to handle this matter when it is sent to the other place.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I will not prolong our proceedings for longer than one minute. Last year I tabled amendments to delete the previous government proposal on a religious hatred offence in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Like many noble Lords, and in concert with so many others in the country who oppose this Bill in principle, I would have preferred not to have had it. The creation of a religious hatred offence in any form is fraught with difficulty, as we have discussed many times. However, the Government are determined and in that light I support the amendments passed by this House last October, introducing substantial safeguards for free speech and religious freedom.
	Despite the fact that we have reached a compromise, the Government remain obdurate. I understand that during negotiations held over recent weeks, the Government's idea of a compromise is to propose amendments that achieve the same results we saw in the original Bill, but using slightly different wording. Is this what the Government always aim to achieve when they offer consultation and negotiations?
	I am very glad my own party has remained firm. Together with my noble friend Lord Hunt I hope we will continue to do so if this Bill comes back here changed by the Government in another place, ignoring the amendment that was passed, I remind your Lordships, with a majority of 90 in this House.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place.
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's Green Paper, A new deal for welfare: Empowering people to work. After eight years of a Labour Government there are now 2.3 million more people in work. There are 1 million fewer people on benefits. Two million children and almost 2 million pensioners have been helped to escape from living on the poverty line.
	"Since 1997 we have worked to build a modern active welfare state. Through the minimum wage and tax credits we have made work pay. Through record investment in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus we are creating an enabling welfare state that responds to the needs of individuals and matches rights with responsibilities.
	"All this contrasts with the legacy of the party opposite. Eighteen years of economic mismanagement and welfare failure had left 3 million more people of working age on benefit. Unemployment went up 50 per cent. The numbers claiming incapacity benefit trebled as it was used to hide long-term unemployment. Three million children were left to live in poverty. It is time we brought this shameful legacy of Thatcherism to an end.
	"That is why ensuring the right to work should always be one of the fundamental responsibilities of any modern government. Work is good for you. Work can be the bedrock of personal responsibility, dignity and wellbeing. The challenge we face today is how to build a modern welfare state that allows people to exercise this right when our national economy is changing more rapidly than at any time since the industrial revolution.
	"And it is not only our economy that is changing. We are confronted by a rapidly ageing society and a falling birth rate. Soon, and for the first time in our history, there will be more people over the age of 80 than under the age of five. So our welfare state must continue to adapt to meet these challenges.
	"We have set ourselves the ambitious goal of an 80 per cent employment rate. Its achievement will be critical for the nation; for individuals; for families and communities; for wealth creation; for economic competitiveness; and for social justice. I do not underestimate the scale of such a challenge. It will mean a million fewer claiming incapacity benefit, a million more older people in work and 300,000 lone parents off benefit.
	"The proposals we are putting before the House today will make a significant contribution to realising this ambition.
	"Today's Green Paper builds on reforms we have already introduced to remove the remaining barriers that hold people back from work. Our approach is based on a belief in an active welfare state that balances rights with responsibilities; that provides work for those who can, support for those who can't. Our proposals will be fair to claimants and fair to taxpayers.
	"We will reform incapacity benefit. Nine out of 10 people who come on to incapacity benefit expect to get back into work. Yet if you have been on incapacity benefit for more than two years, you are more likely to retire or die than ever get another job. This cannot be right.
	"Also, the circumstances of claimants are changing. No longer is incapacity benefit associated only with Britain's industrial heartlands. There are more people on incapacity benefits in the south-east than in the north-east and there are at least 150,000 claimants in every region. A third of new claimants now cite mental health problems as the main reason for coming on-to the benefit, compared with a fifth in 1997. It is an issue affecting all of the country, not just parts of it.
	"We have already made a start. The combination of increased support through the New Deal for Disabled People, together with an extension of rights through the Disability Discrimination Act, has started to improve the opportunities available to disabled people. Building on these reforms, our strategy is threefold. We will act to reduce the number of new claimants. We will provide greater help for those on the benefit to return to work. For the most severely sick and disabled, we will provide greater support.
	"The Green Paper sets out proposals to improve workplace health. GPs have an important role to play in helping to ensure that their patients are able to work. So we will test the impact of employment advisers in GP surgeries. The first of these will be in place within a month. We will work with GPs and primary care professionals to support individuals to remain in work or return to work. And we will reform statutory sick pay to simplify it and ensure that it helps people to stay in work.
	"We will reform the medical test, which acts as the gateway to incapacity benefit. The assessment process must ensure that it is focused on a person's potential capability and capacity to engage in the labour market rather than just their incapacity.
	"Central to this will be the reform of the 'exempt' category within the existing benefit structure. We must ensure that it no longer writes people off simply because they have a particular condition. For example, if you are blind the current benefit structure assumes you will always be incapable of work. This is wrong and unfair. We will correct this by reforming the criteria for exemption.
	"In future, all claimants will be assessed not just to determine their eligibility for benefit but also their capability for work. I recognise the sensitivity and importance of getting this crucial aspect of the reforms right and we will consult on this and other issues to ensure that we take a fair and equitable approach. We will also review the mental health component of the test.
	"In addition to reforming the gateway, we will reform the benefit itself. From 2008, new claimants will receive an employment and support allowance, replacing the current system of incapacity benefits. The perverse incentives in the current system will be removed. Unlike today, no one will be eligible for the full benefit until they have completed the medical assessment. Claimants will no longer receive more the longer they claim. For those who are 'exempt', the new benefit will be paid at a higher rate than now. As now, they will be able to take up support if they want to, but it will not be a condition of their benefit.
	"However, for the vast majority—those who will not be exempt—the new benefit will have a clear framework of rights and responsibilities. They will be required to attend regular interviews, complete action plans and, according to evidence about what works and the availability of future resources, engage in work-related activity.
	"The level of benefit they receive will be above the current long-term rate of incapacity benefit. But those refusing to engage in the help and support offered could see their benefit reduced progressively in stages to the level of jobseekers' allowance. Existing claimants will remain on their current benefit level. Over the next few years we will ask existing claimants to attend a work-focused interview and agree an action plan to take steps to return to work. Those who do not engage will, as now, potentially see their benefit reduced. This process of re-engagement has already started.
	"But we can only ask more of people if the help and support they need is in place. Our Pathways to Work pilots—combining employment and health support—have already shown significant success in getting people off benefit and into employment.
	"I can today confirm that over the next two years we will be investing a further £360 million—from within my existing resources—to extend Pathways to Work to every part of Britain by 2008. For the first time, as a result of this investment, we will be bringing new hope and opportunity to some of the most disadvantaged members of our community.
	"I am confident that the reforms outlined today will move us significantly closer to our goal of an 80 per cent employment rate and the realisation of that vision. I believe that if we take the measures that I have outlined today and work together with health professionals, local authorities and employers, we can get a million people off incapacity benefit within a decade. In doing so we could ultimately save up to £7 billion a year for taxpayers. That should be the scale of our ambition—nothing less.
	"We need to do more to help lone parents to get back into work. Today, 56 per cent of lone parents are back in work compared with 45 per cent eight years ago. We know that many lone parents want to work but face barriers to returning to the workplace. This is why we have extended support through the new deals and our 10-year childcare strategy.
	"Building on these reforms, we will increase the number of interviews lone parents are expected to attend. We will require those whose youngest child is at least 11 to attend interviews every three months, alongside piloting a new premium so that lone parents are better off if they take serious steps towards preparing for work. Those with younger children will have to attend twice a year, compared to once a year now.
	"We will pilot more intensive support for lone parents during the first year of their claim and we will also simplify the rules so that lone parents are not penalised for joining work experience programmes.
	"A key part of our strategy is to ensure that many more older people are able to remain in work for longer. I have spoken about the challenges of an ageing society. The Green Paper sets out proposals to extend all aspects of the New Deal 25 plus to the over-fifties. We will improve the back-to-work support for JSA claimants and their partners who are over 50, and work with employers to extend flexible working opportunities to older workers.
	"The Green Paper also sets out our plans to simplify the existing housing benefit system to improve work incentives and encourage personal responsibility for housing choices.
	"The Green Paper sets out a challenging goal—one which central government, acting on their own, cannot meet. Instead, we will need to engage those in the public, private and voluntary sectors in a new mission to improve employment opportunities in our disadvantaged areas.
	"Moreover, there is a crucial role for local community leaders. Tackling worklessness can be achieved only if we work with partners in the local community—including the private and voluntary sectors—and harness their energy and commitment to deliver real progress. Some of our biggest cities in particular have a disproportionate number of benefit claimants.
	"I am committed to opening a new chapter in the evolution of our modern welfare state. Local leaders will be asked to bring together local employment, training and health providers to help tackle concentrations of worklessness. They will be able to ask for greater flexibilities over the use of existing funding.
	"I believe that local communities should share in the benefits of reducing the number of claimants. So for successful bids, I will provide seedcorn funding, and a financial reward for meeting their aims.
	"The publication of our proposals today will start a three-month consultation process. We will engage and listen carefully to all who respond; to everyone who shares our commitment to improving the employment prospects of those currently living on benefit.
	"My vision, therefore, is of a modern welfare state that responds to individual need, balances rights with responsibilities and invests for the long term. The Government stand ready to make this investment in our people and our country. That is why I commend the Green Paper to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Addington: My Lords, this is something that is probably been overdue—something that we have been promised for a long time. I hope that it is the start of a very constructive process. To mirror what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, the general thrust seems to be a good one, based on a degree of consensus. It hints at the fact that we shall have the individual placed at the heart of the system and that we shall look at the individual need, treating individuals as units unto themselves and their own circumstances. Unfortunately, that is not a resource-light approach. A one-size-fits-all thing is a very bureaucratic and comfortable system—tick the right box, get the right answer, and you are off and running.
	GPs were mentioned in the Statement, which is quite right; GPs will be a vitally important part of getting the process right. However, the term "general practitioner" should give rise to a degree of caution in everybody. They are not experts; they are called on to deal with an extremely wide range of problems. What sort of support has been built in here, and what sort of formal link has been built in between health and the Minister's department? Indeed, the Minister is probably historically very well based to assess the level of that link. The fact of the matter is that without such support, much of what we are talking about here—much of the aspirational stuff—is going to fail. You need expert support and intervention early on.
	Mental health is one of the biggest areas of growth. Can we realistically expect a GP, who has a wide-ranging generalist job to do, to be an expert in mental health? The answer is, quite simply, no. We now bring physiotherapists into most practices. Under the old idea of IB for a worker whose back has seized up or who has a repetitive strain injury to a hand, a physiotherapist is the right person to help that person back into work and to give support through that process. Does the Minister see a situation in which that sort of help will be provided for those in the mental health system? If it is not, you have already created a hole in the structure. You must have that type of support available, and I look forward to hearing more about the process.
	Many of the other hints in the system come down to the fact that we must give individually-based support throughout the process. If we do not, everything is going to start to slip. Can we have a little more guidance as to where we are going to find the extra resources and people to administer the system, if we are cutting staff numbers in the department? GPs will be able to do a lot, but there will have to be greater knowledge, awareness and training among those working within the Minister's own department. Where are we going to get the increased training and awareness? The good generalist training that has been in place seems to show that there are problems about expertise. Where for the GP and those other workers is there going to be the course that tells them when they have to bring in the experts? I have asked this question before but I have never received a satisfactory answer. When are we going to make sure that when the GP does not know something, he is told that he must bring someone else in? It is better to act too early than too late—and not when the system has broken down, because that way would guarantee appeals. Can we have some guidance about that level of implementation and how it will relate to an individual person? If it does not, incapacity benefit, which had effectively become the way in which to hide unemployment statistics throughout a long historical period, going back longer than 1997, we will merely tickle the top of the iceberg and not the real problem.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their remarks and their generally constructive comments and questions. Obviously, the intention is to bring legislation to Parliament, one hopes in the summer, because we need to get on with the legislation if the new IB scheme is to be ready to roll from 2008. so I look forward to what I am sure will be some very interesting debates in the next few months.
	I will not rise to the rather depressing analysis of the economy made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The economy remains one of the strongest labour markets in the world, and 10,000 new vacancies are notified to Jobcentre Plus every working day. The experience of Pathways to Work shows that even where people may have been disabled severely or where they have suffered considerable illness they have been able to get back to work with the kind of support that was given in the pathways pilots. That fills me with confidence about the route that we are going down. This is not a shot in the dark; we are building on the work that my noble friend Lady Hollis had a great deal to do with in previous years. We can see already what kind of intervention works.
	Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right to say that some people will not be in a position to work, certainly in the short to medium term, and that is recognised in the Green Paper. However, we should not write off anyone's chances completely. We need to have a flexible system that ensures that people's capability is considered from time to time. One of the great problems of incapacity benefit has been that once people have been on it they have tended to be left on it without the intervention and support that is so clearly required.
	The thrust of the early remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was that we should be much more concerned about encouraging and supporting rather than conditionality and sanctions. This programme is going to work because it gives encouragement and support. The noble Lord mentioned people who had been on incapacity benefit for some time who were nervous about going back to work. I agree that it may be for many of those people that the health problem is no longer the key issue about going back to work; it may be that they lack the confidence or the motivation. That is surely where some form of conditionality comes in and some ability in relation to sanctions to encourage people to seriously consider work and the availability of support for going back to work.
	There is no question that the experience of Pathways to Work suggests that, even for people who had been on incapacity benefit who volunteered to come into the programme as existing claimants, the personal advice and support has been a great morale booster. The most heartening thing about Pathways to Work has been the more than 10,000 people who were already on incapacity benefit who volunteered to go on to the pathways programme to receive support. I am meeting some of those people who have now gone into work, and one can see, through the personal advice and the individual service tailored to them, how effective it can be.
	The noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Addington, referred to GPs and health, and I very much agree with them. We are keen to work with the health service and with general practitioners. It is not the role of the DWP to come between the GP and the patient, but there is no question that we need a culture change not just among GPs but among employers and employees. There has been a stock reaction that says, "You are ill; therefore work is not good for you". We need to change that, because clearly for many people being stuck on benefits for many years has had adverse consequences for their long term health and for general outcomes in terms of finance and family support. If we can encourage GPs and work with them to encourage patients to consider work as a good outcome that would be helpful, and it goes alongside the efforts that GPs are now making to be much more preventive in their approach. We support them in that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me about the degree of co-operation between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, and about the kind of support and training that will be available for GPs. He is right to emphasise that as important. The strategy that we launched in the autumn about healthy workplaces was a joint strategy between my department and the Department of Health. I regard that as a significant event. The more that my department and the health department can work together nationally, and the more that Jobcentre Plus and DWP officials and primary care trusts can work together locally, the more likely we are to have a holistic and supportive approach in which GPs can respond to the full. Any noble Lord who has visited a Pathways to Work scheme will find that, locally, primary care trusts have had an important and positive role to play.
	I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he referred to the specific support in relation to mental health. He talked about the benefit of quick access to physiotherapy. The earlier the access, the more chance you have of nipping a problem in the bud. That must be the same with mental health. We are working with the Department of Health. Some pilots are going to start that look very much at that kind of early intervention. I am hopeful that that will create a pathway for the future. I also agree with him generally about training for medics and GPs. My right honourable friend Mrs Margaret Hodge and I met leaders of the medical profession this morning to discuss those issues, and were encouraged by the response. We will take forward work to develop training in the way that the noble Lord suggested. I am happy to discuss with him in further detail some of the proposals that we have in mind.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked me about the average length of time. I shall try to find out the figures if they are available. I agree with him that, whatever the figures are, the time is too long. IB has been too passive. This has to be a much more active approach. It is a supportive approach, and we know from Pathways to Work that a supportive approach works. It is an individually based approach, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. I am confident that we can develop capacity in my department. We will look to the private and voluntary sectors to help us with that, but I again pay tribute to the people in my department and the contractors on Pathways to Work, who have done a marvellous job. They have shown how an individually based approach can work, and that certainly is the model for us to build on in future.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his general welcome. I am sure that we will enjoy his contribution when legislation is brought before your Lordships' House. He made an important point about undue pressure being put on someone who has suffered health problems or is disabled. I assure him that the kind of process that we are taking forward, built on the experience of Pathways to Work, is very much about encouragement and support.
	The previous system has been passive and all the incentives have been wrong. We want to turn the incentives around with the impact that work-focused interviews can have. This is about ensuring that people are given support to be as independent as possible. It is not too much to ask for an element of conditionality in the requirement to attend work-focused interviews. As time passes, we will develop that in terms of work-based activity. That might embrace training and tasters of work so that someone can discover what it is like to be at work again if they have been on benefits for a long time.
	There is a rights and responsibilities agenda. It is right for us to be assured that it is appropriate for a person to continue to be on benefits or to go onto benefits in the first place. Here I would commend the new personal capability assessment process that we will develop, which, instead of just focusing on the nature of incapacity, will assess whether a person should be on benefit and look at their capability for work. My hope and intention is that this should be seen as a positive process. We should never forget that the outcomes for a person will be much better if they can be in work than if they have to remain on benefit.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I agree with her two points, the first of which was about no automatic read-across. That reinforces the importance of, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington suggested, an individual approach to individuals, rather than blanket categories, which we have had previously. I also very much agree with her about the case for early intervention. All the work in this area suggests that early intervention can pay off enormously. Everything that we seek to do—whether in relation to incapacity benefit reform or the wider issues of healthy workplaces, which is the subject of a strategy that is very much embraced within the Green Paper—is about early intervention.
	My noble friend is absolutely right. GPs and the health service can play an important part, as can individuals, but we need employers to be on board as well. We need them in relation to incapacity benefit, lone parents and older workers. I think that this will be a major challenge for the Government in the future. The Pathways to Work experience is good—we have had co-operation from employers—but we need to do very much more.
	We particularly need to work with small and medium-sized enterprises. The evidence suggests that the large companies recognise these issues and are prepared to work with us. Indeed, on the wider health and safety agenda, in many places employers look very carefully at workplace design, are quick to deal with issues around stress, have very good occupational health services and make early interventions. I have come across a number of companies in which, if an employee reports sick either with muscular-skeletal disease or with stress, that is often a trigger to an immediate referral to an occupational health adviser, so that early intervention can take place. That is not so easy for SMEs, with which we clearly need to do much more.
	We will shortly be launching the Health and Safety Executive initiative Workplace Health Connect, which is designed as a free phoneline service for SMEs in relation to workplace health. That can be followed up by visits and signposting to expert services. I hope that it will one of the important tasks that we will take ahead to embrace employers. Clearly, we need to do much more as well and I assure my noble friend that this will be a priority for us.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, and of course he is right to suggest that there is a read-across to the Turner commission and the Government's decisions in relation to that. We have made some progress here in relation to older workers. I think that the definition of older workers is those of 50 and over, which will come as some surprise—indeed, shock—to your Lordships. There have been advances in recent years, however. The New Deal 50 plus has supported over 150,000 job starts since April 2000. We have had the Age Positive campaign, promoting the business case for an age-diverse workforce. My noble friend's point about employers and their attitude is important.
	The age discrimination legislation which will be brought forward will also encourage the employment of older people. There is no question that older people can bring a lot to a company: maturity, skills, leadership and many other attributes. In the autumn, I visited B&Q in Bolton, which has employed older people. There is no doubt that customers like it. I met some employees in their 70s who were enjoying working, and the income. The more that we can recognise that, and acknowledge the work of employers and employees, the more that we can ensure that older people are able to remain in work.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can we be assured that Ministers will be keeping in close rapport with both disability organisations and the Disability Rights Commission at all stages of the consultative process as it proceeds? I reinforce what my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham said about employers. Is there not a very strong onus on them to do more to help, clearly employing disabled people who are now unemployed and seeking jobs, and on the department to improve employers' attitudes to the employment of disabled people?

Lord Carter: As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, the Public Bill Office has done a first class job in listing all the amendments that are consequential to this amendment. This will be the largest group of amendments and, I hope, the shortest debate in the Committee on the Bill. I am sure that the Chairman will wish to call large blocks of amendments, "Not moved".
	We must be careful not to turn this into a joke. We must not leave this important organisation with a risible title. I mentioned the title to somebody outside this debate. He said that Natural England sounded like a brand of yoghurt. I favour the title "Commission for Natural England". That retains the words "Natural England", which I know the Government want. Perhaps we should have "Natural England Commission". I am not so keen on "Natural England Executive" or "Natural England Agency".
	We have the Home Grown Cereals Authority, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Countryside Agency, and we used to have the Countryside Commission. We have the Rural Development Service, the Environment Agency and the Commission for Rural Communities. Now we have poor old Natural England, which sticks out like a sore thumb without the right subscript. I hope that between now and Report stage the Minister can consider this and that we can choose a title which we can all agree with.

Baroness Byford: I support this proposal. There is confusion in the country. "Natural England" means many things to many different people. It certainly does not mean Natural England to those of us who live and work with it and see it in that way. If the words could be altered, it would give the organisation a greater start in life. It is nearly an apology or an afterthought. At least people know what the Commission for Rural Communities is and roughly what status it carries, but currently Natural England does not have that attachment. I wish that I could say to the Minister that I have an alternative suggestion; but I do not, so I am afraid that the Government are swimming by themselves.

Lord Bach: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I wonder whether the historians among us can tell us whether this is the largest first group of amendments ever in Committee; it must be close to it.
	My reply is intended to be brief. That does not mean for a moment that I do not accept that there is genuine feeling about the name. I say right at the start that of course I will take the matter back and look at it again but I have to say that I am not hopeful that I will return to this House with a changed name.
	We believe that Natural England, together with what is described as its strapline—"for people, places and nature"—sums up what the agency is to be about: conserving and enhancing for us all to enjoy now and in future the national treasure that is England's natural environment. The name was proposed by the chairmen of the three predecessor organisations—I am reminded by the noble Baroness that they are still in being—the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Rural Development Service, following consultation with the staff of those organisations and their partners and has their support. That final point is important at a time of substantial change for all those working in those organisations.
	There are no established rules about whether the names of non-departmental public bodies should include the words commission, agency, council or executive in their title. Although there is a tendency for commissions to be mainly advisory, rather than executive bodies, such as Natural England is due to become, even that simple distinction has not been applied consistently.
	We favour the simplicity of the expression "Natural England" for two reasons. First, the many customers and organisations with which it deals will certainly shorten its title to Natural England, whatever formal name it is given in statute. There is a good argument for aligning its legal title with the name by which is known. Secondly—I do not know whether this reason that has crossed the minds of Members of the Committee—it may help people to position it in relation to two important sister organisations: English Heritage and Sport England.
	Having made his brief remarks, I repeat that I will go away, talk about and reconsider the matter, but with no promise that we will change our minds.

Baroness Byford: In following the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I speak to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with Amendment No. 9. We are well aware—because we have been told—that the Rural Development Service will be transferred en bloc, I think, to become a part of Natural England. But that is not in the Bill. The other two organisations are in the Bill because they have to be dissolved in order to come back into being: there has to be a dissolution and a re-birth. I understand—please correct me if I am wrong—that that does not apply to the Rural Development Service, which is why it is being transferred in this way.
	I have some questions for the Minister with regard to the development service, and where its raison d'être lies, which follow on from my Question earlier today on the Rural Payments Agency. I was surprised that when the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was asked to carry out this review, the Rural Payments Agency was not included in this remit. I do not think that it was, although I am sure that the Minister will clarify that. What is the Rural Development Service supposed to do in addition to what it has done in the past? What is its relationship with the Rural Payments Agency? Once it is up and running, even after my Question today, and it is a success—we wish it good speed—will the Rural Payments Agency still be necessary or will the Rural Development Service undertake to take on some of its responsibilities?
	The concept of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was to establish a new agency bringing together under one roof what had been done by several agencies, thus reducing costs, personnel, overlapping and regulation. This point was just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I have a concern which we shall touch on later, but I want to raise it now and leave out the detail at the later point. The original proposal was to set up a new agency under one umbrella. I understand that the new agency, Natural England, will be based in Sheffield but will be staffed by only 12 to 25 people. The rest of the organisation, English Nature, will remain in Cambridge, while parts of the Countryside Agency will remain in Cheltenham. At this stage, I do not see how cost savings will be made when staff and management costs still have to be met at three different bases. However, the idea behind the Haskins proposal was to bring these functions together in one place.
	The fact sheet published for the Rural Development Strategy 2004 makes reference to this:
	"The Integrated Agency will have structures at national, regional and local team level. Staff from the parent organisations will over time be co-located, to deliver operational benefits and achieve efficiencies through estates rationalisation".
	But that is not made clear in the Bill. I suspect that the costs assessment is flawed. I put this to the Minister carefully because so far I have not been able to get an answer: where will the savings be made if in fact there is not to be an amalgamation of all three agencies? That is my current understanding. Haskins made it clear that this would be done to save costs, reduce regulation and to bring the body corporate together.
	I want to add one more thing to the melting-pot. At a time when the CAP is under pressure and further reforms are likely, resulting in a possible squeeze on Pillar One, what effect will that have in the future on the amount of money available to the Rural Development Service compared with what it has now? Some of that money may well not be forthcoming in future years. Has the Minister addressed this?
	I have covered the reasons for tabling my amendment. I am also slightly troubled at the way Defra itself is the corporate body responsible, at the way this new agency is to take on an arm's-length government role—we shall consider the detail of that later—and where the individual elements each has its own responsibilities, linking with the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and many other bodies which obviously were not included. I should like some clarification of the position regarding the Rural Payments Agency if the Minister has it to hand. However, I am happy for him to come back to us with guidance because it would be of enormous benefit.

Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for raising these important issues. I am bound to say that I too am in some confusion over exactly how certain aspects of the responsibilities of the RDS are to be deployed. I have before me the briefing paper distributed prior to the Committee stage. It is helpful, but it does not explain one or two issues. As I understand it, the environmental functions for which the RDS was responsible are to be transferred to Natural England. That includes agri-environmental schemes under, presumably, Pillar Two. But there are other schemes under the second pillar that apply specifically to rural business schemes. Presumably in the future they will not be dealt with by Natural England, and I assume that they will become the responsibility of the regional development agencies. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
	Given the ever-increasing role of the regional development agencies, there is a perception, which I think is true in certain parts of the country, that the RDAs themselves tend to be rather urban-based and do not take their rural responsibilities quite in the way that the Government had originally hoped. That being the case, I fear that those grants that might be applicable in rural areas for rural business schemes operated by the RDAs might not be quite as satisfactory as we would all hope. If the Minister could explain the situation to me, I should be extremely grateful.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, following on from what has just been said, I started to think about the potential problems of the Rural Payments Agency. I know from my wife's experience on the farm that all cannot be well with the RPA, despite the Minister's replies at Question Time today. For instance, despite the RPA having changes to the maps of my wife's place for many months, it sent them back to her on 23 December asking her to check all the areas and return them within seven days—not seven working days; seven days, over Christmas. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that this does not help the work-life balance.
	There were a considerable number of changes, but I managed to check them, and did find a couple of faults. This was not entirely the RPA's fault, as it is quite difficult, when you are sent only partial maps, to spot that one field's change may also affect another, and it is easy to slip up on forms. I trust that e-mailing them back on the seventh day was taken as sufficient evidence of hitting the seven-day deadline. I do not know when we will receive a response. Entry-level schemes and various other things depend on those maps, and so far we have been prohibited for many months from entering such schemes, at some considerable loss of income, because the RPA could not get the maps out. So all is not well there.
	Despite the answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I can tell the Committee that we have not received a payment since November 2004. That hits cash flow badly. If the RPA is going to be thrown into further chaos by these provisions, some arable farmers may have a lot of trouble. It is essential that the RPA is handled carefully throughout this, and with the minimum disruption. I was concerned when I heard all these points being raised.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I will deal with these amendments in terms of why the Bill is as it is drafted. I will do my best with that. As far as these important broader questions of governance are concerned, the noble Baroness is right: I will not be in a position today to answer her and other noble Lords satisfactorily. With the leave of the Committee, I intend to write a substantial letter to noble Lords setting out some of the issues that the noble Baroness and others raised in this debate, which they will then be able to read at their leisure. If amendments are required after that, they can be brought at a later stage. I would rather do it that way than attempt to get note after note, and half-answer the important issues that have been raised. I shall of course answer some matters today.
	The intention behind Amendment No. 9 is to help clarify where the functions of English Nature and the Countryside Agency will be transferred on their dissolution. Our intention is to transfer functions variously to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities and the rural development agencies. Indeed, some of the work of the Countryside Agency has already been transferred to the RDAs.
	I appreciate that the Bill might seem incomplete because Clause 1(4) could be read as implying that all functions are to be transferred to Natural England. I can confirm, however, that subsection (4) is legally accurate as drafted, because no legislative powers are otherwise being transferred to the CRC or RDAs. Other bodies are not mentioned or cited in subsection (4) because those functions that are being transferred to the CRC and RDAs—for example, advice and funding powers—do not require amendments to primary legislation as they are covered in new or existing statute or will be done by secondary legislation. The addition of the words "or other persons" in Amendment No. 9 is therefore superfluous, although I hope that I have to some extent clarified that it does not prevent some of the work of these bodies being transferred elsewhere. I concede that this is a complicated issue. I shall be happy to take it away and consider whether there is a clearer way of dealing with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 in due course.
	Amendment No. 10 deals with a similar point. It is an attempt to clarify the position of the Rural Development Service, which is a division of Defra and not a separate legal entity. As such, the Rural Development Service is—this is a rather unpleasant phrase—an emanation of the Secretary of State and it is neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention it on the face of the Bill. It is appropriate to raise this sort of clarification only in the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill.
	However, I am happy to clarify the position on the RDS as best I can for the Committee. As Amendment No. 10 suggests, the existing functions of the RDS will largely be divided between Natural England and the RDAs, although some will remain with Defra or its agencies. The RDAs will take responsibility for what is described as socio-economic funding, as we made clear in the 2004 rural strategy, although this will be effected using the RDAs' own powers and changes to secondary legislation which do not need to be mentioned in the Bill.
	A large part of the Rural Development Service's functions, including the delivery of the agri-environment schemes—which we all believe will become central in the years to come—will be the responsibility of Natural England. The Bill provides a mechanism to delegate RDS functions using Chapter 1 of Part 8, powers to enter into delegation agreements, to which we will come later in the Committee but I fear not today—I hope not today—and we expect to use those powers for some of the RDS functions. Others will be managed by changes to secondary legislation or using Natural England's own powers conferred by the Bill, such as its powers to enter into management agreements established by Clause 7, which we may well debate later today.
	I can give no assurances that there will be any clearer way of dealing with the points raised by the two amendments but I shall look again at the Explanatory Notes and offer some alternative wording which sets out the position more clearly.
	I shall now do my best to answer some of the questions that have been raised. As to the issue around local authorities, since the Government's response to the EFRA committee's March 2005 report, we have altered Part 8 of the Bill, the flexible delivery arrangements, to add all local authorities to the list of what are described as "designated bodies" in order to bring them within the scope of the delegation agreements under Part 8 to permit functions to be exercised by local authorities.
	Indeed, so far as the governance of rural England and city regions is concerned, I hope I understand the issues. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to be a little patient and allow the debate on these issues to be taken when we discuss the Commission for Rural Communities. There is a line of argument that says that if the noble Baroness is right about the effect of city regions, it is an argument for the CRC rather than one against it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether the Rural Payments Agency was included in the Haskins review. The answer is no, because its functions continue. Its main function is as a specialised accredited paying agency under European Community law. Although what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said was of considerable interest, and although we seem to have spoken of little else today but the RPA, it is not really relevant to the issues that the Committee has to debate. So if he will forgive me, I will not go down the road of mapping and the issues we have already debated.
	To return to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as far as Haskins and democratic accountability are concerned, it is true that only NDPBs have replaced NDPBs. However, my noble friend Lord Haskins did not recommend a continuation of the social and economic roles of the Countryside Agency. By agreeing to create the Commission for Rural Communities, the Government's proposals will retain a broader range of bodies.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised some important issues around the budget and the way in which costs have been estimated. I have some answers today. On Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 expenditure, she will know about the arguments around voluntary modulation. We will be able to modulate up to 20 per cent from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 as a result of the December European agreement. On the budget for Natural England, there are still some important details to work out. I would rather write to the noble Baroness and copy the correspondence to all other noble Lords who have spoken.
	I hope that that explanation is reasonably satisfactory and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Byford: In moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 26, 31, 36, 43, 44, 49, 53 and 98—quite a batting order.
	I was not minded to be difficult, but one of the things that is taxing our minds is the whole question of how a non-departmental government body is remote from the Government. One of the key things to do is look in the schedules. As members of the Committee will see, the Secretary of State has an immense amount of power within these schedules to appoint members to the board, chairmen and staff. I will briefly go through the amendments as best I can.
	On Amendment No. 21, it is the stated policy of this Government to make all public appointments through the commissioner. The intention should, however, be placed in the appropriate places on the face of the Bill. If that is not done, it will only require a statement of the change of policy to allow senior appointments in highly influential positions to become a gift of the Minister or the outcome of a political debate. The changes to be initiated by this Bill will have the effect of reducing the amount of the cross-tension between bodies involved in the running of the countryside. By cutting the number of bodies that have equal influence over what happens the Government have, in effect, reduced the amount of decision between various departments and the agencies. The role, for example, of the chairman of Natural England will be even greater than that of the existing chairman of English Nature. The Bill should safeguard appointments to such positions by including the words which would give effect to the current policy.
	On Amendment No. 22, I understand that the Government intend Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities to be these arm's-length bodies. They are envisaged as demonstrating a great deal of independence from the Government. The appointment of the chairman is clearly in the hands of the Secretary of State. The remaining appointments are to be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, so the shortlist will, as it were, conform to the rules of engagement. However, the final decision on other board members should be in the hands of the chairman and his advisors. We have tabled these amendments, relating to the maximum 10-year period permissible for any board member but, as things stand, Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities could each be run for many years by up to 16 people all appointed by the Secretary of State herself. We feel that such a situation could compromise any claims to independence, and might inhibit the ability of the chairman to run his board effectively.
	The commission in particular will be concerned with ensuring that rural funding is put to the correct use. That funding will now come almost entirely from the rural development agencies, with only national projects being supported directly by Defra. The chairman of the board of the commission will need to be competent, effective, knowledgeable and hard-working, which I am sure that he or she will be, and the commission will need to be a cohesive, whole operation, run on a basis of mutual respect and trust. The duty to ensure such a position must rest with the chairman and his should be the final approval for membership of that board.
	Much the same qualities will be demanded of the board of Natural England, and the chairman will have a similar need to establish and maintain a tightly knit organisation. To conserve, enhance and manage the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations is a daunting task, which will not be made any easier if the board is not a first-class team. The emphasis is on the team and how good that team is, as I have no doubt that the selection process will throw up those who are highly qualified to do the job—and we obviously all hope so. The final selection must be seen in the same light as that of an expedition leader or captain of a round-the-world yacht. In those circumstances, compatibility and having a person to fill each team role and function is considered vitally important and, if we got it wrong, it could be very difficult.
	Amendment No. 23 and related amendments are consequential amendments, which are perhaps unnecessary in two respects. First, if the Minister agrees that the final selection of board members should be done by the chairman, he may wish to consult the Secretary of State, but we suggest that that should not be done the other way round. Secondly, if the selection process is of the quality expected, it is surely axiomatic that those appointed to the board and commission should have experience and demonstrate a capability for the type of work that they will be required to do. Is it truly conceivable that the Commissioner for Public Appointments does not have as part of his remit that appointees should be fit for the purpose?
	I turn to Amendment No. 26. The independence of any board or commission is surely highly questionable, when the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State, the chairman of which is then chosen by the Secretary of State and the deputy chairman of which is also selected by the Secretary of State. It casts doubt from the very beginning on the trust that the Secretary of State places in her chairman and in the strength of her intention to remain at arm's length. When, however, the Bill lays down that having consulted said chairman on the selection of remaining board members, the Secretary of State may choose without consultation the deputy chairman, one can be in little doubt that the Secretary of State means to have a strong and ongoing influence in all matters relating to the conduct of the board and the commission. We should prefer the chairman to appoint the members of his team in conjunction with the Secretary of State, and they then select from their midst his deputy.
	Amendment No. 31 is a probing amendment. The Bill refers to whether a person has had his estate sequestrated in Scotland. Presumably, sequestration does not apply in Wales, which has the same arrangements as England. Would proceedings in Tenerife, the Bahamas, Florida or wherever be regarded in the same way? That is the obvious question that follows the tabling of this amendment. Have we here an oblique indication that the board of Natural England might be staffed by Scottish landowners, or might it be possible that it will be served by someone whose main home is overseas—or do the Government see that the board should have among its members people from England who will decide matters appertaining to England and not Scotland or Wales?
	When we come to the amendments relating to Amendment No. 36, noble Lords will be pleased to know that I shall not refer to them in full again. Amendment No. 36, which would leave out "pensions", is a probing amendment. I am quite mystified by this provision. Unless the Minister intends the word to mean something other than is normally meant, I cannot agree that the board of Natural England should be empowered to pay a pension to any of its members. I do not know whether that is already so—but I cannot think of a board whose board members, rather than staff, are paid pensions. I was intrigued by that.
	Paragraph 11(b) enables the board to pay sums,
	"towards provision for the payment of pensions".
	Empowerment to pay pensions to existing members, however, implies that the board will take over responsibility from another pension provider. Thus someone joining the board who, while still relatively young, is entitled to a pension from the police or Armed Forces, might be covered by this provision—or is the Minister contemplating the possibility that the board might attract applications from senior civil servants or ex-politicians who would be entitled to draw a pension while fulfilling their contract with Natural England? The idea that the board might take on the responsibility for paying the pension of someone from the private sector is extremely far-fetched, but I suppose that if the permission were there it could happen.
	On Amendment No. 43, both board and commission are intended to be non-departmental public bodies. As the Bill stands, however, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint the chairman, the deputy chairman, the remaining members and the chief executive. That could amount to 17 people in each organisation. I am no statistician, but if there were two members under 50, 12 under 60 and three older than that, if three left before they reached 65 or two of the over-60s stayed until they were 72, the appointing Secretary of State could be responsible for more than half of each of the governing bodies a decade later. I am sure that that is not what is envisaged. Under which circumstances would sub-paragraph (3) operate? Who would decide that the chief executive should be appointed by the Secretary of State? Would it come from the Cabinet, would the Secretary of State simply claim the duty, or would the chairman turn to the Secretary of State rather than trust the board? That single line in the Bill poses more questions than it answers.
	Amendment No. 44 requires a shorter explanation, for which I am thankful. The amendment should be read along with paragraph 14 on page 49 of the Bill. I understand that unless some such wording is in the Bill, neither body will be able to employ staff, despite paragraph 13(1) in both schedules. Perhaps the Minister will simply confirm that no intention is implicit in this permission.
	Amendment No. 53 is a probing amendment. Why does the Bill lay down a separate rule for payment of the increases in superannuation payments? Why does it not simply say that the board will be responsible for omitting all such dues? Why, too, is the payment of such sums not apparently covered in paragraph 15(b)?
	Finally, Amendment No. 98 is another probing amendment. It is my understanding that any body corporate is bound by a number of Acts which require it to meet financial, employment, competition and many other standards. In all cases, that will render them liable to inspection by Customs and Excise, the Health and Safety Executive, the Audit Commission and maybe a host of others. What will be the nature of the Secretary of State's inquiry? What type of person will inspect and make copies? What explanations will be sought and why? How often can that intrusion occur? Will the outcome be made available to the chairman? Will the Secretary of State publicise the exercise, the reasons for it and the results?
	I apologise enormously that the amendments were all grouped together but they are so interlinked. I beg to move.

Viscount Eccles: I rather doubt whether we will get to the bottom of this subject while considering one Bill in this House, because such practices are varied. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew are mentioned in the Bill. The board members are trustees who are not allowed to be paid by law, so they do their jobs voluntarily. Some people are quite happy to do jobs voluntarily in all sorts of sectors of our lives. Other people are part time. I know from my own experience that you can be chairman of a public company and get no pension, but you can invest in a self-invested pension plan if you receive a reasonable fee. I suggest that we obtain a clear statement about the Government's policy towards the organisations mentioned in the Bill, rather than try to solve the range of ways in which people are remunerated, which I am afraid we would never manage in the time available.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise for intervening when the Minister sat down after her preliminary response. I was minded to speak, but was called out in connection with the next business, in which I have a small role to play. Because of that I wish to say what I was going to say in support of the spirit of the amendment.
	This Government take pride in joined-up government. I wish to use an analogous case, which may be some distance from this, but is in the same area. One problem that some of us on these Benches have had in connection with the National Lottery—and I declare an interest, because of my past involvement in it—has been that the principles of arm's length distance and additionality, which were argued for very strongly by the present Government when they were in opposition, have been overtaken now they are in government by a willingness to throw away the additionality principle. In discrediting that principle, they have polluted the arm's length principle, too.
	I agree that that is a distant example, and I am conscious that I am saying this in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who has more recent experience of these matters than I. Because of the read-across that we conduct in the light of the Government's pride in joined-up government, there is an underlying suspicion that relates to many of the propositions of the sort that we are discussing. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Byford has moved the amendment.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Countryside Agency. I was paid for three days a week—in fact I did four or five, sometimes six or seven. It seemed to me logical that if I was paid for three days a week, I should receive both a salary—it was some £45,000—and should receive a pension on that. Pensions did not apply to the ordinary board members because they were de minimis.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, argued that I might not want to take a stand and, therefore, lose my job because I feared I might lose my pension. Surely, my salary is far more important than my pension. So was the noble Baroness's argument that I should not have been paid at all? I do not think that that follows. This clause applies only to the chairman, and possibly the deputy chairman, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, if they happen to be working for a considerable number of days a week.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right, and I have yet to find an example of any member of a non-departmental public body who feels constrained in any way whatever in criticising the Government when they feel strongly about an issue, whether or not their posts are paid and pensionable. However, I shall read carefully what has been said. Of course, there are separate arrangements to provide pensions for the staff of an NDPB.
	Amendment No. 43 would prevent the Secretary of State from appointing Natural England's chief executive. It is normal practice, when a new body is set up, for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive, who will also be designated as the accounting officer. In this way, a chief executive designate can be appointed in advance of the body having legal status to ensure the smooth running of the body once established.
	A considerable amount of preparatory activity is required ahead of Royal Assent to ensure that Natural England will be fit for purpose and able to deliver the planned efficiency savings from day one. This preparatory work is likely to have a significant impact on achieving important strategic outcomes.
	In practice, what we have done is to appoint a chair designate of Natural England—Sir Martin Doughty, who was appointed in November—who in turn sat on the selection panel which selected a chief executive designate, Dr Helen Phillips, who was appointed earlier this month and takes up formal duties next month. As I said, the appointment process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. An assessor approves the advertisement, sits on the interview panel and issues a certificate of compliance. The Government follow all the codes of practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Secretary of State is the legal body that appoints chairs—some legal body must make appointments.
	The noble Baroness gave me a very complicated mental arithmetic sum, to do with what would happen if a number of people were appointed at certain ages and left at other ages. Well, in my education, I was never brought up on mental arithmetic. I promise to read what she said and to see whether I can get the answer, although, knowing the noble Baroness, I do not think that she would have posed the question if it did not give the answer that she wanted.
	Amendment No. 44 would remove the provisions enabling Natural England to employ staff, which would, of course, make it well nigh impossible for it to fulfil its role effectively. I am now aware from the debate that the reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, tabled the amendment was to raise this useful debate about staffing issues. As the Committee may know, existing staff of the Countryside Agency, English Nature and Defra's own Rural Development Service will be hoping to transfer to Natural England this October.
	Amendment No. 49 would effectively remove one of the standard empowering provisions for NDPBs. This provision allows Natural England to pay pensions to its staff as required by the Secretary of State. I know that the noble Baroness will be pleased to note that the Cabinet Office requires ministerial governance of pensions and it will be a condition of entry for the Civil Service pension scheme.
	Amendment No. 31 would delete a provision that allows the Secretary of State to remove a member from the board if, as the noble Baroness said, they had their estate sequestrated. This does not apply in Wales, where people are already covered. I do not know whether it applies to somebody who comes from the Bahamas, but I will look into that. It may be that an individual who sought membership had been resident or had conducted business in Scotland and had the appropriate experience—as we know from this House—to bring valuable knowledge and expertise. The Bill merely rectifies an anomaly.
	Amendment No. 53 removes a provision which requires Natural England to pay any additional contributions that may be required to the pensions fund as a result of changes to which the Superannuation Act 1972 applies, such as changes in pay or grading structure. This, along with the matter with which Amendment No. 49 deals, is a fundamental requirement of membership of the Civil Service pension scheme. There is nothing more to it than that. I hope that that answers the concerns of the noble Baroness.
	Amendment No. 98 would prevent the Secretary of State from authorising an investigator or team of investigators to undertake an audit-type review of decisions or actions taken by Natural England. This is a power of last resort and I am not aware of any case where it has had to be used. However, it is an essential safeguard of the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for the activities of Natural England.
	I hope that I have covered the points. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, tempted me into the field of Treasury decisions and the National Lottery. I am sure that he speaks in error, although I am quite sure that he speaks with strong personal conviction in the points that he makes.
	As I said to Members of the Committee—I am sure that they will be able to tell this, if not so far, then as we go further through the Bill—the many noble Lords with experience on NDPBs demonstrate that independence not only of thought but of action and speech goes along with the public duty. It is my belief that the public duty is not hampered by providing enough income to enable us to employ all those who could make a contribution and to choose from them the very best.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has highlighted the dilemma which prompted me to table this amendment and, more particularly, Amendment No. 112. The general purpose of the body we are at present calling English Nature seems to be looking backwards. It is conservation oriented; it wants to preserve. These are wholly laudable things. The one thing left out of the purpose is the possible effect of climate change and the need for finding solutions to that; to change the way that some things are done in the countryside and maybe, even—Heaven help us—to change the nature of the countryside itself.
	That is the reality which we increasingly have to face. It is not an easy one. It is very uncomfortable. If we do not find the solution to that problem, however, everything else written in this general purpose, frankly, becomes meaningless. The impact of climate change is not going to be sustainable. It is as simple as that.
	The noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, in his debate on climate change, said—among other things in a very long, detailed and interesting speech—that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may reach the levels towards which we now know we are pushing it, and remain there for an historically long period, and that when such an atmosphere last existed on this planet, the sea level was 300 feet higher than it is today. There may be an inaccuracy in that, and it may be two or three millennia away. It may be that we need not concern ourselves with what may be two or three or five millennia away. However, our successors will certainly be concerned—if, in fact, that is the problem. If we are creating a problem, they will not bless us if we do not start to look for solutions. That may well mean doing things not only to our urban communities, but to our rural communities and the countryside, and changing many aspects of planning along the way.
	I raise this because there has been an investigation by two very bright researchers—that is not my description, but that of the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. A paper entitled Stabilization Wedges – Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies was published in Science on 13 August 2004, by Messrs S Pacala and R Socolow. It is a serious academic paper, but is also a very practical academic paper. It looks at the problem on a global scale. I raise it because it has some relevance to what we are discussing.
	Messrs Pacala and Socolow have looked at current technologies and asked what can be done with those technologies that will stabilise carbon dioxide emissions over the next 50 years and then possibly start to reduce them. They came up with 15 possible actions, any eight of which would stabilise carbon dioxide emissions. If all 15 were capable of implementation—and some of them conflict slightly with each other—we would begin to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is not my purpose to list all 15 because that would not be relevant to this debate. However, five of them affect the countryside in one way or another and I shall list those.
	The first is wind electricity. A deployment of wind electricity 700 times greater than the present global deployment, that is 30 million hectares, would provide an eighth of what is necessary to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions. That is a massive increase in contribution. We are behind some countries and ahead of others, but we are a developed country with above global average emissions of carbon dioxide per head and we must bear our share of the problem. That may mean more wind farms than we have at present even begun to think about and that will affect the countryside.
	We need many hundred times more photovoltaic electricity than the present deployment. It is possible that we can achieve that by using the roofs of houses, but such electricity will produce more energy per acre than plants. We may need to consider the possibility of industrial-type installations in the countryside. Biofuels are a countryside option and every farmer is hoping they are the answer to his prayers. They could make a daily contribution of 34 million barrels of ethanol. At present, that would take 250 million hectares producing 15 tonnes per hectare of convertible dry matter. That implies intensive agricultural production of a type that might not be deemed to be in the best interests of the beauty of the English countryside, except that the English countryside will start to change and may possibly disappear in the longer term if we do not find a solution. On this action, Pacala and Socolow comment that it could compromise global capacity for food production: I made that comment in this Chamber without having the authority of their studies behind me, and it is nice to see that.
	Another action, which is perhaps rather better, is forest management. Stopping the clear-felling of tropical forests and reforesting 250,000 hectares in the tropics or—this is where it could affect us—400,000 million hectares in temperate zones would be a huge increase in afforestation. If we play our part in that—and forests are beautiful and would be a great asset—it would be a dramatic change in the nature of our countryside if it were done on any considerable scale.
	The final action will perhaps make farmers in the House chuckle. It is agricultural soils management. It is called conservation tillage and will reduce carbon dioxide emissions if, as Pacala and Socolow comment,
	"it is proved to work as advertised".
	That will affect 1,600 million hectares.
	That is what will be required, or something like it, if we are to start tackling the issue of global warming seriously. Our share of these actions will inevitably have a dramatic impact on our countryside. Therefore, I thought it worth while tabling these probing amendments. The Government say that they are serious about global warming. But if we are serious about it, we cannot pretend that the English countryside will not be affected. It will be affected. Some people will regard some of the effects as adverse. It will be different countryside in 50 years' time. Otherwise, we will create problems for which our grandchildren's grandchildren will not thank us. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: Perhaps I may briefly say how much I appreciated the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith because he raised something of fundamental importance. There is no doubt that we will have to experience and put up with change in the countryside in order to accommodate some of the problems the noble Lord mentioned. Without expanding on what the noble Lord said, because I think he put his case extremely well, I simply ask the Minister whether he thinks that Natural England's ability to deal with the issues the noble Lord raised is sufficiently wide enough in the Bill. That question really needs to be looked at.

Lord Rotherwick: I have great sympathy with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I am not totally attracted to the word "developed", as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. I am not sure that this is a natural word for our English landscape. I am also not attracted to the word "enhanced", which I also have difficulty over.
	There are already very good examples around our landscape of climate change. Currently, oak is dying out substantially in some areas of the Cotswolds. Nobody knows for certain what is causing this but it is suggested that it is due to climate change. As it gets warmer, oak comes under more stress and subsequently dies. The word "enhanced" does not allow English Nature to recommend the planting of a different species, perhaps Mediterranean oak or the like. We are told that the beech of the Cotswolds, where I come from, will not survive a rise in temperature if the climate change, as predicted, goes ahead. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of wording to allow English Nature—or Natural England as it will become—to allow estates, farmlands, communities or whatever, to move forward and plants trees as an insurance policy, so that when the climate change comes along, we have trees left in our environment.
	I am also concerned about the word "enhanced", and I am interested in its definition. "Conservation" appears in the Bill before "enhanced". For instance, Clause 2, entitled "General purpose", subsection (2)(b), refers to,
	"conserving and enhancing the landscape".
	One has to question whether "conserving" or "enhancing" is more important. Often enhancing is not conducive to conserving—and I take "conserving" as meaning conserving that landscape in its historical state. Therefore, in the phrase "conserving and enhancing the landscape", I wonder which comes first. Does conserving come first and is it overarching over all the rest of them or can Natural England pick out as and when it wants which of those two words is more important? It would be helpful if the Minister could help us on what is really meant.
	In conclusion, the amendment ensures that this provision does what the Minister wants; that is, it gives a wide ability to Natural England to go forward and deal with our landscape, to protect and preserve it for the next generation. Being caught with this wording would, in my experience, tend to make its officers do something that is detrimental to the landscape and not what the caretaker of that landscape wants.

Lord Bach: I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for instigating this interesting debate about very important topics. First, I shall deal shortly with Amendment No. 106, which he moved, which would add "developed" to the clause. We are not sure that that would add anything of significance. I shall come back to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in due course, but the phrase, "conserved, enhanced and managed" is very broad. Action of a developmental nature could be part of a conservation scheme, developing the measures that protect a rare species from further loss. It could be part of an enhancement scheme, restoring derelict land to make it attractive and accessible to local communities. Most of all, it could be part of the management of the local environment that encompasses a huge range of actions.
	From a purely presentational point of view—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Judd and others—we would prefer not to use the word "developed" as part of Natural England's general purpose. The development of the natural environment is associated in many people's minds—whether fairly or not—with built development. Although Natural England may be occasionally responsible for built development in the natural environment, using the term in its general purpose would not be the best way to tell people about its core purpose. Thank you for the debate on that, but we think that it is the wrong word. Perhaps the noble Lord agrees—I do not know.
	I turn to the heart of what the noble Lord was talking about, which is climate change and what is and what is not suitable to include in the Bill about that and the general purpose of Natural England. The amendment would make it clear that promoting countryside development that assists the limitation of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere is part of Natural England's general purpose. I think that it is now a given, especially in this House, that climate change is not just vital but the issue for our generation. Of course, the Government expect Natural England, in common with all other public bodies, to play an active role in combating its effect.
	However, that is a very wide-ranging agenda, in which Natural England will not be the lead player. Who is the lead player is a more difficult question to answer. One must say, at the moment, the Government—the Government in the broader sense. Defra has a large role to play in climate change but, as the noble Baroness has implied, other departments have a role to play, so government is probably the best answer to that question.
	As a key element of the broader sustainable development agenda, climate change will be an important part in the context in which Natural England operates. There is no doubt that relevant action to mitigate climate change could fall within Natural England's general purpose. That is an important statement. However, it will approach it from the point of view of an organisation whose functions, powers and expertise lie in environmental management. As I tried to explain earlier, the items listed in Clause 2(2)(a) to (e), are a selection of what is contained within Natural England's purpose. Of course, the list could be much longer, but that would not necessarily increase its value as a means of clarifying its role in conserving, enhancing and managing the natural environment—again, a point that my noble friend Lord Judd made. So the amendment would not help to clarify the issue.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked a question to which the answer is yes. He will of course remember what his question was.
	On whether the approach in the Bill is wide enough, the consequences of climate change for the natural environment will be core business for Natural England. The overall aim of reducing carbon emissions will be an aspect of sustainable development that Natural England will consider in pursuit of the existing wording. Many noble Lords have emphasised the importance of the independence of Natural England. I now return to subsection (2). The current wording of sustainable development in subsection (1) strikes the right balance between guidance from statute on priorities and the great need to allow the board of Natural England to decide its priorities as an independent organisation.
	I have done my best to answer who is responsible for climate change. Local authorities, not the regional development agencies, give planning permission and are key bodies. There are 388 of them, which emphasises that all public bodies have a role to play. I do not think that I need to go into the exact wording of the amendment and whether it is suitable in the context of the Bill.
	On conserving and enhancing, the definition of those words is that conserving means protecting from harm or destruction. Natural conservation, set out in Clause 30, means the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features; while enhancing has a different meaning, which is to improve the quality, value or extent of something. No doubt we shall return to that in due course. Once again, I thank the noble Lord.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I am grateful for the general support of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked whether the definitions in Clause 2 are sufficiently wide. My concern is that they are not. I have put these amendments down with the specific intention of initiating this debate. I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I am not wedded to one particular word or a particular wording in the clause at this stage. I am wedded to the issue, however, and I think that we need to give some very serious thought to how we deal with the matter. That general proposition has been supported in various ways by other Members of the Committee.
	I am particularly exercised about this because the Minister said that the Government are the lead player. Therefore, while Natural England naturally has a role, about which he made some very positive remarks, the Government are the lead player. My particular concern is that the Government may be the lead player, but at present they are not playing. They initiate one study after another. Decisions go from deferral to delay to further deferral, and so on. There comes a point where they have to start taking action. My question is whether this is one of those points. I seriously suggest to the Minister that it is. This is not a point which will cost the Government any money or cost them anything other than marginal loss of face because they think that their Bill is perfect and perhaps it is not. That is insignificant in relation to the issue that lie behind these amendments.
	I hope that the Minister will agree to further discussions on this issue to see whether we can square this conundrum rather better than the Bill does at present. If the Minister agrees to that, I shall go away very happy. Otherwise, if we cannot even discuss the issue, I shall conclude that I will have to put another amendment down. It may not be satisfactory, but we might need to be rather more positive about the way in which we push it. I accept completely that there is general agreement on the need to tackle the issue which I have raised. The last thing we want is to start debating that again today. But I am not convinced that this is yet another time or occasion when we do nothing. If the Minister would agree to discussions to relieve me of that worry, or possibly to find a form of words on which we could both agree, that would be enormously helpful. If he cannot agree to discussions, I shall know what to do.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the draft regulations as he has. The Government's original estimate for the time that this debate will take was 45 minutes, but I think that may turn out to be an underestimate, and I hope that the House's temper is not affected by the late start.
	In moving my amendment, I should declare an interest that one of my sons is a self-employed letter-cutter and stone-carver and that I am and have been for the 10-year period of this saga the only president that the British Art Market Federation has had. Henceforward I shall refer to the federation as BAMF. It pays me a small retainer not of my seeking to enable members of BAMF to feel free to telephone me when they wish. BAMF was set up in 1996 in response to a request by the DTI and has welcomed the chance to work closely with Her Majesty's Government. Relations have been good over the decade; it is the set-back to those relations, arising from the precise terms of the draft statutory instrument, that has been criticised to a greater or lesser degree in recent days by the Economic Development, Culture, Sport and Tourism Committee of the London Assembly, on the "Channel 4 News" last Wednesday, on the "PM" programme on the BBC on Saturday and by the first Times leader yesterday, that gives rise to this amendment.
	The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House, to which the Minister made reference, thought that the Government's wording afforded potential for such an amendment, especially given that the regulations create an intellectual property right previously unknown to UK law.
	BAMF appreciates that the regulations are a necessary consequence of the EU directive. BAMF has always been loud in its praise for the Government's robustness in the national interests during the five years of the negotiations of the directive, between 1996 and September 2001. The Government's opposition to the directive was based at the top end, on the likelihood under the directive of significant sales previously conducted in London moving outside the EU to markets where droit de suite does not apply—notably Switzerland and the US; and, at the bottom end, on a low threshold for the resale right imposing new costs of business quite disproportionate to the putative benefits that artists would receive.
	The Government's original objective, in line with those policy criteria, was to set the threshold at €10,000. The reason why negotiations took five years was that the Government, vehemently opposed to the draft directive, unless there were a level global playing field that would thus avoid damage to the EU and UK markets, constructed a blocking minority composed of Austria, Ireland and the Netherlands, which, like ourselves, neither had nor desired droit de suite, combined with Denmark, Portugal and Sweden, which already had a resale right and favoured a directive but was sympathetic to our concerns. There was some political cost to the latter three countries in supporting us, so it was inevitable that the blocking minority would not hold out indefinitely; but significant concessions towards our case were secured in the process in the Internal Market Council.
	The Government, in a way that the rest of the EU admires, maintains solid cross-departmental unanimity, which had the Prime Minister's consistent, active and effective support. They secured a €12,500 cap to droit de suite individual payments, as the Minister has said, and achieved the derogation till 2010, extendable to 2012, whereby royalties will accrue only to living artists.
	On the minimum threshold, the directive was eventually unanimously agreed in the Internal Market Council at €4,000. It fell to €3,000 in the conciliation process with the European Parliament, which was urged on by the commission, so hostile to our case that it issued a press release condemning the concessions that had been made to us. The Government had already, most unusually, threatened the use of the Luxembourg compromise. To demonstrate their reaction to being asked to vote on a final threshold a third lower than the council had unanimously agreed prior to conciliation, the Government then, even more unusually, voted against the directive's final text. That took five years, leaving Her Majesty's Government at least four years to publish this draft statutory instrument, with a further three months to spare for everyone to prepare for implementation once they had the Government's precise interpretation of the directive for British purposes.
	The Patent Office commissioned unpublished research, now known as Leeuwenburgh study, of the likely working of droit de suite. After two and three quarter years, the Government had effectively reached agreement on the application of the directive, with BAMF on the one hand and the Design and Artists Copyright Society, henceforward referred to as DACS, on the other. As late as mid-February last year, the consultation document issued by the Patent Office retained a threshold of €3,000. The Minister, in giving evidence to the inquiry into the art market by the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, said the following month—that is March 2005—that applying the level below €3,000 would mean that,
	"The administrative costs become an absurdly high proportion of the actual payments which will go to artists".
	Both BAMF and DACS replied to the consultation. An effort by DACS to discuss administrative costs collectively with auction houses and dealers was foiled by the Government's competition laws, but individual auction houses and dealers invited DACS to come back for individual talks—invitations which the society did not take up. Those talks would have been devoted to the technical problems of setting up the systems.
	The Select Committee inquiry was perhaps constrained for time by the distant thunder of the election. It was on the broad subject of the art market; it lasted for 11 weeks in all. Witnesses were given brief deadlines to produce written evidence, which had to be produced before the consultation document had been published. The time allotted to oral evidence within those 11 weeks was a single morning. During that evidence on 8 March, the chairman of BAMF, Mr Anthony Browne, drew attention to the unpublished research commissioned by the Patent Office and suggested that the Select Committee should look at it. There is no prima facie evidence from the Select Committee report that it did so, but it did recommend reducing the threshold to €1,000.
	I am not clear precisely when the Patent Office commissioned a second study, now known as the Graddy and Szymanski report, but it was published in October 2005. Its evidence essentially confirmed the facts of the earlier study. In early September, a month earlier than the publication, BAMF was expecting to be shown the draft regulations for final comment. That offer was withdrawn, perhaps because they were not yet ready. The Government were then nearing the deadline of 1 October for publishing the regulations, by now four years in gestation, to allow three months for market preparations based on the final text. The Minister did not seem wholly aware of that time pressure when the chairman of BAMF and I visited him on 18 October.
	Be that as it may, BAMF was asked at the end of September to amplify the estimates of administrative costs that it had submitted in the consultation phase. That was requested as a response to a DACS estimate, later quoted by Graddy and Szymanski, of between 43p and 56p per sale—which the Minister has translated as £1—in quarterly submissions. BAMF explained that it could do no better than before unless it saw the final text, since the specific demands on its members would be contained therein. One auction house within five days did illustrate the price that had been paid in DACS's not taking up the invitation to meet them to discuss the technical problems. I cite a handful.
	In DACS's argumentation, it took responsibility for the calculations, and cited the details of a single auction sale that that auction house had conducted. The auction house identified a 6 per cent error rate by DACS in the calculations, and explained to the Patent Office that the market would have to make its own calculations; it could not rely on those by DACS, not just because of that but because it could secure no indemnity against DACS's mistakes or failure to inform, especially as claims could be made up to three years later, long after the auction house had paid out its vendor's proceeds. Its confidence had not been encouraged by DACS's assumption in its calculations that droit de suite would be charged on the buyer's premium, nor had DACS allowed for the myriad of ways that auction houses allow their bills to be paid while buyers may default or procrastinate.
	Since the draft regulations were published—of course with their decision to set the threshold at €1,000, to insist on both agent and vendor responsibility, and to impose compulsory collective management, which I believe is unique in the European Union—highly respected dealers have tried checking out artists whose works they handle against the DACS website. They have found it, at this stage, impossible to do so. The Graddy and Szymanski report stated that the art market had claimed costs of £30 to £40 per transaction, which is in line with Leeuwenburgh's figures of £28 to £38. It also quoted him as giving figures of £6 per item under compulsory collection and £11 under voluntary schemes. Those were in fact the lowest individual figures he received in a survey that he conducted, but the highest went as far as £50. The spectrum from 43p at one end to £50 at the other makes it crucial to know, and I therefore ask the Minister, whether the Patent Office showed Graddy and Szymanski the auction-house reply that I have just cited on why the process was not as straightforward as DACS imagined.
	This is not the moment or the hour to get into arithmetical calculations, but there seems general agreement that fewer than 1 per cent of British artists will qualify for droit de suite in the auction houses and among dealers if the threshold is lowered in the way that the draft statutory instrument intends. I shall say that again slowly. Fewer than 1 per cent of living British artists altogether will benefit. That percentage makes DACS's raising of hopes to those described as poor artists a cruel mockery, especially when Szymanski and Graddy calculate that, with the €1,000 threshold, artists below €3,000 would receive an average payment of £49 before DACS's 25 per cent fee. In Leeuwenburgh's study of the 189 living British artists above the €3,000 threshold, eight of them would share 31 per cent of the total droit de suite—yet Caro, Hockney and Hodgkin, obviously among the potential beneficiaries, have all come out against the principle of droit de suite in their letter to the Times. The £49 that I cite as being the average payment between €1,000 and €3,000 does not, of course, include the costs to business.
	Beyond the extra costs to business, what are the consequences of this U-turn? Despite the Government's earlier inter-departmental unanimity in opposing the directive, I am sure that the Minister must have Whitehall cover, just as he has conferred it on his officials. But the Government's boast of not gold-plating EU directives is now holed below the waterline, despite the published Cabinet Office guidelines for civil servants in preparing regulations of several years ago, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's very recent reiteration of gold-plating no longer occurring. For small businesses—whether auctioneers or dealers—a new set of systems will need to be set up, potentially to cover 50 countries. Making the agent and vendor jointly responsible creates double the hassle.
	Much more serious still when considered in the context of the market moving offshore is the sense of irresolution now conferred on the Government's future defence of the derogation relating to dead artists, who will constitute 80 per cent of the droit de suite universe. Our recent allies Austria and the Netherlands have already legislated at €3,000. How does our behaviour affect their confidence in us when we shall need their help again, or how does it discourage the Commission or the European Parliament from assailing anything else that smacks of concession to us? A Government who stood firm in their first term of office have run for illusory cover in their third.
	The trouble with throwing away a key concession at the lower end—I am sure that the Minister does not consciously believe that he is damaging the market at that level—is that it makes it much more difficult to hold the line at the top end, where the capacity for damage is in due course immense. Those at the lower end on whom the Minister has unnecessarily increased the burdens will not even be comforted that the market will overall in future be more secure. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets that the regulations go beyond the requirements of the European Union directive implementing the regime for the payment of artists and calls for the regulations to be replaced within six months by regulations in accordance with the directive".—(Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville.)

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am not sure what interests I should declare. My wife and I are occasional purchasers of works of art. I have a son who is an art dealer and a daughter-in-law who is a well known artist.
	I was astonished to listen to the opening speech by the Minister. I am even more astonished having heard the background to this case, which my noble friend Lord Brooke set out in his remarkable speech for someone who usually speaks in this House with such moderation. I have rarely heard him speak with a stronger sense of irritation than I detected this time. Even before my noble friend's speech, the Minister's speech seemed grossly complacent. I can only say that his speech was economical with the facts. Who would have thought that the Government opposed these proposals tooth and nail as they went through, threatened the Luxembourg compromise and voted against the measure? I hope that the Minister will be more frank with the facts when he winds up than he was when he opened.
	One of my principal objections to this measure is because I have been a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Select Committee since it started. I spent two hours at its meeting this afternoon. The committee is strongly opposed to gold plating, and it was largely because of that that it drew the attention of your Lordships' House to this measure.
	Contrary to what many noble Lords feel, I have a good deal of sympathy for giving artists a right to a share when their work significantly increases in value over the years. But I do not see the logic in reducing the threshold from €3,000 to €1,000. By my calculations, an artist whose work sells for €1,000 in a secondary or later sale after the primary sale, will receive, after the 25 per cent administration costs, only slightly over £20. I wonder whether that is worth all of this—reducing the threshold—when at the bottom end of the sale an artist will receive that trivial amount.
	I was astonished to hear the Minister saying, as I understood him to say, that the cost of administration of all of this need not be more than £1 per sale. Well, one has only to think of administration costs. What can one do for £1 in terms of staff, accommodation and materials? If that is what the Minister has been led by his civil servants to tell the House, it beggars belief. It is nonsense that administration of this sort of sale could be done for as little as £1.
	I understand that most subsequent sales of works of art achieve significantly less than the first sale by the artist. As I understand it, in the majority of cases where a collector supports young artists and he purchases a work of art, the overwhelming chance in subsequent sales is that they will be at a lower price than the first sale. Someone who likes to support young artists will know that if he wants to sell a piece of work later he is likely to take a loss that may be made even bigger, because he has to pay the charge on that as well. We must realise that the implications of this measure will be to deter at the margin collectors who wish to support young artists.
	I cannot help but believe that this measure is a formula for driving the art market away from this country to Switzerland, Japan or the United States. All I can plead is that the Minister will think again, take this measure away and bring it back in another form.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville on securing this debate on an issue of such crucial importance to the art market. I join with my noble friend Lord Jopling in remarking on the brilliance of his speech.
	This droit de suite directive has been described to me as the darkest cloud on the horizon for the international competitiveness of our art market—a statement with which I strongly concur. As a dealer in watercolours myself—I state that interest—I am also a lover of art and a Conservative. I have opposed this paradoxical directive from the very start. I strongly believe that it will be highly detrimental to the British art market, and will seriously damage that part of it which depends on imported goods.
	The 5 per cent import VAT mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already considerably damaged the British art market, in driving the very top of the market to, principally, New York, whereas we used to have almost a monopoly.
	I welcomed the general cross-party opposition to the original directive, and was somewhat surprised by the Select Committee's response to the issue. It was upsetting that Her Majesty's Government finally had to adopt the directive on 27 September 2001. However, it is more upsetting, now that we appear to have no option but to implement the directive, that this draft statutory instrument gold-plates the directive, rather than supporting most of the significant concessions secured by the Government during negotiations. As the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has highlighted twice in its report:
	"the Regulations go beyond the minimum required by the Directive in two respects. These are: the minimum price threshold for a sale to be liable to resale royalty, which the Regulations set at 1,000 rather than 3,000 euros; and the provision made in the Regulations for joint liability of the seller and an art-market professional involved in the sale".
	We have heard about that already.
	The British Art Market Federation argued that considering the force of the British opposition, this gold plating is particularly inappropriate and unnecessary and that it is inconsistent with stated government policy on EU directives. I look to the Minister to give firm assurances today that this will be altered. I suggest that the current draft SI is taken away and a new draft SI produced and published in its place.
	As the House of Commons Select Committee pointed out in its report The Market for Art:
	"The state of the visual arts is a useful proxy for the health of our cultural life".
	Britain currently leads Europe in the provision of services for the buying and selling of art. Our country has more than 50 per cent of the European art and antiques market and 25.3 per cent of the global market. It is a market made up of around 10,000 businesses that provides employment for more than 37,000 people. The UK art market is particularly dependent on cross-border trade. In this key respect, it is the only serious global competitor of the United States. This directive, and the subsequent SI that we are considering today, will materially reduce our competitiveness, encouraging the displacement of the market to the United States and Switzerland which, not surprisingly, have expressed no intention of following suit when the levy comes into force in Britain. This will cost our market millions in revenue and a significant number of jobs.
	Research in countries that are already enforcing the droit de suite has shown that the benefit to artists has been virtually insignificant, as did the Patent Office's initial compliance cost assessment in 1996, Market Tracking International's report in 1999 and the Patent Office study in 2003.
	Will the Minister explain clearly to the House why the threshold below which the droit de suite royalty is not payable has not been set at €3,000? I believe that there is an error in the evidence that the Design and Artists Copyright Society gave to the Select Committee. On the one hand, Her Majesty's Government say that they want to help struggling artists, but on the other, they put forward an SI that will work against them. That is a paradox I cannot condone or, indeed, understand.
	The most significant concession gained by Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations was the permitted derogation by which the introduction of the directive for those entitled to royalty for up to 70 years after the artist's death can be delayed until at least 1 January 2010. Why have Her Majesty's Government not taken advantage of that provision and extended the date of derogation until 2012? That could have been one occasion where gold-plating would have been worth while.
	Finally, why have Government continued to go down the gold-plating path, particularly as there are very few examples in UK copyright law of such a system? Indeed, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee suggested that it may have been more appropriate to adhere to the minimum requirements on these points in the initial implementation of the directive.
	I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the issues that the Government fought for, but not the recommendations of the Select Committee or the SI as we see it in front of us today. I hope that the Minister will not disappoint me and will provide assurances that the gold-plating of this proposed regulation will be removed and that Her Majesty's Government will now implement all the concessions they gained in negotiations. That is the only way we can make sure that our art market remains one of the strongest in the world.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support the extremely persuasive speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke. Unlike a number of noble Lords who have spoken tonight, I have no interest to declare and I certainly have no expertise in the art market. I speak in this debate because I am deeply shocked that this Government, who have made so much of deregulation or better regulation and lifting from the citizens of this country the burden imposed by the sort of regulations of which this is an appalling example, should be producing it tonight. It makes the position very difficult.
	We have heard an awful lot over the past eight or nine years about joined-up government. I cannot believe that the unit in the Cabinet Office which is responsible for lifting the burden of unnecessary regulation is enthusiastically supporting the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, today. Still less can I believe that its members have helped him to write his speech. The people who have helped him to write his speech obviously know very little about business. What makes it so appalling is that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was once himself a distinguished—perhaps even successful—businessman. The fact that he was able to make the speech that he did, producing the absurd arguments about the administrative costs, is a terrible example of the way in which Ministers are inclined to come to the House and parrot what their civil servants give them. I really expected better of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. If he had spent two minutes thinking from his own business point of view, I do not believe that he would have produced any of the figures he has given for enforcement, which have been so devastatingly exposed by a number of my noble friends.
	I have read very carefully the statutory instrument and the very useful Explanatory Memorandum on the Artist's Resale Right Regulations. I was alerted to the subject some weeks ago by a letter in the Times from the British Art Market Federation, by which I was appalled. In fact, as the Minister may remember, in the economic debate I cited the three worst examples of where the Government have gone back to over-regulation. As I read the guidance in the Explanatory Memorandum I found more and more examples of how ill-conceived this all is.
	Let me deal with the argument put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Dubs, about the need to help struggling artists and so on. We can all be in favour of that. But surely—and it is another example of a lack of joined-up government—the Government are in the business of trying to make help for needy people more efficient. To invent or adopt or accept a system such as this as a means of helping people is wildly cost ineffective.
	It also suggests to me that there is great scope for evasion, avoidance and, indeed, skulduggery. Obviously there is a great deal in the regulations about there not being an incentive for people to cheat but, of course, it is very unclear who the dealers actually are. As €1,000 euros is a very low figure, there will be more activity—particularly at the lower end—and far more payment in cash. That is not particularly desirable, but it will happen because that is how human beings work. People will set up to act as representatives or agents to avoid paying.
	In Schedule 2 to the draft statutory instrument there is a fascinating list of countries outside the EEA whose citizens will benefit from this. I doubt that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House to receive spam e-mails—I suspect the great majority of Members receive them—which manage to get through the brilliant House of Lords computer system. These spam e-mails—mainly from African countries—offer us generous shares in millions of pounds if we would like to give them certain financial details. I usually delete them at once but, if I have a moment or two to spare, I sometimes read them. If they are well written I will usually reply, "Pull the other one". That usually ends the problem. Occasionally I get a reply from someone who says that he does not understand what I mean, in which case I then reply, "Then pull them both". That is the way I deal with that particular problem.
	I am quite sure that there are people with great enterprise in some of these countries who will, on reading the statutory instrument, represent themselves as artists—maybe dead or not dead, but lesser known. They will get their names and they will apply to this bureaucratic body which is being set up for their share of the lolly. This will have a most deplorable effect and not just on the art market, on which I am not an expert. Before the Government legislate they have to work out the practical consequences and methods of enforcement. They have clearly failed to do so. What is so sad is that, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, the Government used to be opposed to this nonsense. That makes bringing it in now all the more deplorable.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that is the evidence that has been put forward by a number of bodies, and it is what we rely on.
	That, surely, must be the right way forward. It is clear that the Government have changed their mind in terms of where the threshold should lie, but we believe that they are right to do so.
	The countervailing argument put forward by BAMF is strongly supported by the report from the London Assembly's Economic Development, Culture, Sport and Tourism committee—that the imposition of a lower threshold will greatly damage the competitiveness of the London art market. That report faithfully reflects concerns about trade going to New York and Zurich but it does not give any conclusive evidence of this. In any event, such evidence as there is affects the higher priced works of art, not those at the €1,000 to €3,000 level. I accept that at the top level, that may be the case in future, but there is no flexibility in applying resale right at that higher level. It is true that, as the London Assembly report points out, multiple costs add up, but I do not believe that this is a reason to penalise less well known artists.
	Let us also not forget that there will be a maximum of €12,500 of royalty payments, the exclusion of works sold on within three years for less than €10,000 and the exclusion of works of deceased artists until 2010. I welcome the Minister's statement about the application for permanent derogation. I strongly agree with the London Assembly committee report on the question of monitoring. I want the Patent Office to publish details of how it intends to measure the impact of the droit de suite on the UK art market. In particular, the committee wanted to assess the impact on the sale of contemporary works, the diversion of the market from London and a full cost/benefit analysis of the application of the minimum price at which the directive applies. Those are all sensible suggestions and I hope that the Minister will reply positively.
	As regards the collecting society aspect, although DACS is well known in this field, I do not believe that there should be a monopoly. If another body or commercial organisation wishes to perform this role they should be able to do so.
	I do not know what weight to attach to the Merits Committee report, but it does not clearly state that the regulations are an inappropriate way of implementing an EU directive. The committee's reasoning does not lead to that conclusion.
	Finally, I am in good company. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who represents the Green Party in this House and has a much better collection of works by young artists than I do, has asked me to indicate that he also agrees with the Government's approach.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I still cannot see that the provision in this context prejudices that; that is the legal view that has been taken.
	I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in what I thought was a rather objective assessment of the regulations. So far as other European competitors are concerned, it seems that there is no pattern. The current available figures suggest that Germany, Denmark, Greece, France and Hungary will all come under €1,000; Italy, the Czech Republic and probably Ireland will be about €1,000; Belgium and Spain are between €1,000 and €3,000; while Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal and Cyprus are at €3,000. Across Europe, people are taking different positions on this.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the question of works of video art and whether they are covered by the definition of works of art. We do not think so, because we do not believe that they come in the category of graphic or plastic art, but there will be difficult borderline cases. We took the decision to use the definition in the directive so that there could be no accusations of gold-plating. It is not a very precise definition, but there cannot therefore be any queries about that. I am well aware of the recent criticism in the press, but many of the reports have been factually inaccurate and not based on the latest economic analysis, which we made available on the Patent Office website.
	Finally, I shall deal with another big question, which is why the Government have chosen to make the art market professional jointly liable for payment of resale right. If you take any look at the matter, that has to be the simplest means of operating resale rights. The art professionals are the people who have the experience in this, who can most easily deduct the sum of money, and would be expected to give advice on the issue to buyers and sellers. I cannot see any way that a counter-argument that someone else should do so could be made. If we did that, it would lead to a great deal more grief for everyone, including the art professionals.
	The Government firmly believe that our implementation will allow those artists who are most in need of financial support to gain from their creativity while minimising any risk of harm to the UK's thriving art market. We have not gold-plated this directive and we have not gone beyond what is required within the directive. In fact, in setting the threshold at €1,000, we have not gone as far as the directive allows. In making our decisions, we have carefully excluded those cases where the rewards do not justify the costs. Paragraph 55 of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report, The Market for Art, states,
	"we do believe it should not benefit solely the richest artists. We recommend that the Government lowers the threshold at which the resale right applies from 3,000 to 1,000 euros".

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten me before he leaves that point? The decision to go for €1,000 rather than €3,000 will produce some extra revenue for the artists concerned. What is the Government's estimate of the annual revenue per artist who will fall into that category—the additional money that they well receive from that reduction?